National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Vijay Bansal vs 1. Harayana Urban Development on 10 July, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW DELHI
REVISION PETITION NO.
3740 OF 2011
(From the order dated
10.08.2011 in Appeal No. 569/2008
of the State
Commission, Haryana, Panchkula)
VIJAY BANSAL
S/O SHRI AMAR NATH BANSAL
R/O RATPUR COLONY
PINJORE Petitioner
Vs.
1. HARAYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY,
THROUGH ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR
SECTOR 6,
PANCHKULA
2. ESTATE OFFICER,
HARAYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY,
KURUKSHETRA
Respondents
BEFORE:
HONBLE
MR. JUSTICE V.B.
GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER
HONBLE
MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER
For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. Joy Mathew, Advocate
Pronounced on :
10th July, 2012
ORDER
PER JUSTICE V.B. GUPTA, PRESIDING MEMBER Present revision petition has been filed under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short as Act) challenging order dated 10.8.2011, passed by Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula (for short as State Commission).
2. Brief facts are that petitioner/complainant was allotted plot No.604, Sector-5, Kurukshetra measuring 14 marla by respondent no.1/opposite party No.1 vide allotment letter dated 14.3.1996. As per letter of allotment, petitioner was required to deposit Rs.30,000/-
being 25% amount towards the price of plot within the stipulated period of 30 days. Petitioner deposited the same with the office of respondents but no receipt was issued. Later on, allotment of the plot was cancelled. Hence, complaint was filed under the Act.
3. Respondents in their written statement took the plea that formal letter of allotment was to be issued only after receipt of 25% amount and other required documents as envisaged in the offer of allotment dated 14.3.1996. Petitioner failed to fulfill the terms and conditions of the said offer of allotment letter and never deposited the requisite amount of Rs.30,000/- ( being 25%) against the said plot within stipulated period. Even after the discretionary quota plots above 6 marlas were restored by the Honble Supreme Court, vide its order dated 28.9.2001, petitioner again did not turn till date to deposit the said amount of 25%.
4. District Forum, vide its order dated 31.10.2007, allowed the complaint and passed the following directions ;
(a) To allot a 14-marla plot in Sector-5, Kurukshetra and if not available then in some adjoining equally developed sector, on the same price and of the same size and on the same terms and conditions on which the original allotment was made.
(b) Also pay a sum of Rs.2,000/-
as cost of proceedings.
5. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, respondents filed appeal before the State Commission, which accepted their appeal and dismissed the complaint of the petitioner.
6. This is how this matter has reached before this Commission.
7. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that, allotment of plot was made to the petitioner under the scheme called Discretionary Quota floated by respondent. Merely it was a special scheme, it does not oust the jurisdiction of the Consumer Court. Petitioner had filed an application for allotment of the plot in accordance with law. After considering petitioners application, respondents decided to allot him a plot. Petitioner within the stipulated time deposited the initial amount with all the required documents. However, respondents under some pretext or the other returned the draft amount and documents to the petitioner stating that plot was allotted to some other person. Respondents were duty bound to allot an alternate plot to the petitioner since, allotment made under Discretionary Quota has been upheld by Honble Supreme Court, in Harsh Dhingra & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana, decided on 28.9.2001.
8. State Commission, in its impugned order has observed ;
Undisputedly, the complainants were refunded 10% deposited amount on 1.9.1997 and the present complaints were filed on 22.5.2007. Thus.
The cause of action arose in favour of the complainants on 1.9.1997 when they were refunded 10% deposited amount and after accepting the aforesaid amount, they are no more consumers of the opposite parties. As per provision of Section 24A of the Act, 1986, the limitation period for filing complaint under the Act has been prescribed two years from the date of cause of action and if the complaint is beyond the period of limitation the name be entertained if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, State Commission or the National Commission as the case may be. In the instant case, the cause of action had accrued to the complainants on 1.9.1997 when 10% amount was refunded to them and thus the complaints filed by the complainants on 22.5.2007 was beyond the period of limitation of two years. There was no application on behalf of the complainants seeking condonation of delay before the District Forum along with the complaints and as such the complaints of the complainants were not entertainable being barred by limitation.
It further held ;
This Commission while deciding appeals, bearing no.164/2008 titled as HUDA Vs. Sukh Ram and appeal no.165/2008 titled as HUDA VS. Jora Ram vide judgment dated 21.1.2011 on similar situated facts has observed that ;
..
they were to be given plots under a special scheme knows as Discretionary Quota as the scheme was floated by the Government of Haryana to oblige kith and kin and therefore, the persons getting such a special credit, cannot be said to be consumers.
As a sequel to our aforesaid discussions we are of the considered view that the complainants are not entitled for allotment of plots and the District Consumer Forum has passed the impugned order without appreciating the facts of the case in its true perspective.
The instant case is fully covered by our earlier decision in Sukh Rams and Jora Rams cases (supra). Thus, the complainant cannot be termed as a Consumer.
9. Short question which arises for consideration is as to whether the consumer complaint filed before the District Forum was within the period of limitation and whether allottee of Discretionary Quota comes within the definition of consumer or not.
10. As per petitioners own case, he was allotted a plot on 12.3.1996. Thereafter, respondents framed policy on 25.2.2002, in which it was decided that if plot is allotted to some other person, then the allottee of the plot shall be allotted some other alternative plot. Consumer complaint in this case was filed before the District Forum, in the year 2007. In the entire complaint, , it has nowhere been stated as to when the cause of action has arisen. As per petitioners own case, he was allotted the plot in question in 1996. Thus, the cause of action will arise within a period of two years, thereafter. Since, complaint was filed only in the year 2007, on the face of it, the complaint is hopelessly barred by time.
11. It is well settled principle of law that any relief can be claimed under the Act, within two years from the date on which the cause of action accrues.
12. Section 24-A of the Act which deals with such situation, is reproduced as under ;
24-A. Limitation period :- (1) The District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) a complaint may be entertained after the period specified in sub-section (1), if the complainant satisfies the District Forum, the State Commission or the National Commission, as the case may be, that he had sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within such period.
Provided that no such complaint shall be entertained unless the National Commission, the State Commission or the District Forum, as the case may be, records its reasons for condoning such delay.
13. The above provision is clearly peremptory in nature requiring the Consumer Fora to see at the time of entertaining the complaint, whether it has been filed within the stipulated period of two years from the date of cause of action.
14. Honble Apex Court in case of Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. versus National Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2009 CTJ 951 (Supreme Court) (CP) took view of the observations made in case State Bank of India v. B.S. Agricultural Industries, 2009 CTJ 481 (SC) (CP) = JT 2009 (4) SC 191, as under:-
12. Recently, in State Bank of India Vs. B.S. Agricultural Industries, 2009 CTJ 481 (SC) (CP) = JT 2009 (4) SC 191, this Court, while dealing with the same provision, has held:
8. It would be seen from the aforesaid provision that it is peremptory in nature and requires consumer forum to see before it admits the complaint that it has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action. The consumer forum, however, for the reasons to be recorded in writing may condone the delay in filing the complaint if sufficient cause is shown. The expression, shall not admit a complaint occurring in Section 24A is sort of a legislative command to the consumer forum to examine on its own whether the complaint has been filed within limitation period prescribed thereunder. As a matter of law, the consumer forum must deal with the complaint on merits only if the complaint has been filed within two years from the date of accrual of cause of action and if beyond the said period, the sufficient cause has been shown and delay condoned for the reasons recorded in writing. In other words, it is the duty of the consumer forum to take notice of Section 24A and give effect to it. If the complaint is barred by time and yet, the consumer forum decides the complaint on merits, the forum would be committing an illegality and, therefore, the aggrieved party would be entitled to have such order set aside.
In para No.13, it has been held by the Honble Supreme Court The term cause of action is neither defined in the Act nor in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 but is of wide import. It has different meanings in different contexts, that is when used in the context of territorial jurisdiction or limitation or the accrual of right to sue. Generally, it is described as bundle of facts., which if proved or admitted entitle the plaintiff to the relief prayed for. Pithily stated, cause of action means the cause of action for which the suit is brought. Cause of action is cause of action which gives occasion for and forms the foundation of the suit. In the context of limitation with reference to a fire insurance policy, undoubtedly, the date of accrual of cause of action has to be the date on which the fire breaks out.
15. On the point of recurring cause of action reference may be made to the observation made by the Honble Supreme Court in Raja Ram Maize Products etc. Vs. Industrial Court of M.P. and Other, AIR 2001 SUPREME COURT 1676, wherein it has been held ;
10. The concept of recurring cause of action arising in a matter of this nature is difficult to comprehend. In Balakrishna Savalram Pujari Waghmare v. Shree Dhyaneshwar Maharaj Sansthan, AIR 1959 S.C. 798 it was noticed that a cause of action which is complete cannot be recurring cause of action as in the present case. When the workers demanded that they should be allowed to resume work and they were not allowed to resume work, the cause of action was complete. In such a case the workers going on demanding each day to resume work would not arise at all. The question of demanding to allow to do work even on refusal does not stand to reason.
16. The observations made by Honble Apex Court in the authoritative pronouncements discussed above, are fully attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case.
17. As far as judgment of Honble Supreme Court with regard to Discretionary Quota is concerned, there is nothing on record to show that petitioner was a party in those proceedings.
18. Looking from any angle, no illegality or infirmity can be found in the impugned order passed by the State Commission. The order passed by State commission is well reasoned and it rightly dismissed the complaint.
19. Under these circumstances, present petition being without any legal basis is also meritless. Hence, it is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-.
20. Petitioner is directed to deposit the costs of Rs.10,000/-
by way of cross cheque, in the name of Consumer Legal Aid Account of this Commission, within four weeks from today.
21. In case, petitioner fails to deposit the said costs within the prescribed period, then he shall also be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a., till realization.
22. List on 24.8.2012 for compliance.
...J (V.B. GUPTA) PRESIDING MEMBER ...
(VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER Sonia/